 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| United States v. Oldham, No. 05-1406,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant was convicted of interstate transport of child pornography, the five-level enhancement pursuant to U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 2G2.2(b)(2)(B) applied because his posting of images on his website was intended to stimulate other website members to post similar images; his 135-month sentence was reasonable.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reed, No. 05-6250,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an inmate did not file a petition for rehearing, under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a), following the dismissal of his appeal and the time for requesting a hearing had expired, under Fed. R. App. P. 40(a)(1), the previous ruling dismissing the appeal as untimely was the law of the case, and the district court had no power to reinstate the appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. Reyes, No. 05-4055,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A conviction for bank robbery was affirmed because, although the admission of testimony concerning the reaction of defendant's mother to a surveillance photo of her son violated the Confrontation Clause and probably was not an excited-utterance under Fed. R. Evid. 803(2), the error was harmless since the evidence at trial was overwhelming.
|
|||||
| United States v. Salazar, No. 05-4243,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly denied downward adjustment for acceptance of responsibility under U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual § 3E1.1 (2005) because he went to trial and it was not rare situation in which adjustment might apply as his justification defense was not constitutional challenge, and district court believed defendant lied on witness stand.
|
|||||
| United States v. Williams, No. 05-6330,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An appeal of the denial of a Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motion was dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because defendant filed a notice of appeal two years after his motion had been denied and, since his first filing was filed more than 180 days after the entry of the order, Fed. R. Civ. P. 4(a)(6) precluded any extension to file a notice of appeal.
|
|||||
| United States v. deWilliams, No. 05-1495,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A motion to correct a 1988 sentence pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) was denied because the prior version of Fed. R. Crim. P. 35(a) did not apply since the case was not on remand to the district court but was instead based on defendant's direct motion for resentencing, and the time for a motion under the current Rule 35(a) had expired.
|
|||||
| Wopsock v. Nordwall, No. 04-4296,
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT, May 4, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court of appeals summarily affirmed dismissal of tribal members' complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the members failed to provide the court with an adequate appellate record as required by 10th Cir. R. 10.3, Fed. R. App. P. 10(b), and Fed. R. App. P. 11(a).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
